Laserfiche WebLink
twelve-month delay as they complied with the new requirement to obtain well monitoring data <br />for a minimum of one year. <br />Attorney Collins clarified that the draft Ordinance gives the applicants twelve <br />months after permitting to collect their baseline data. <br />Attorney Ferguson felt that a legal problem might arise from requiring the three <br />pending applicants to comply with regulations which were not in force at the time of application. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and by a 4-0 <br />vote (Chairman Davis recused himself), the Motion <br />carried unanimously. The Board approved for the <br />proposed Version 2 mining regulations to apply to the <br />three mining applications "in the pipeline." <br />Director Boling provided a detailed summary of the proposed changes to the <br />Ordinance, which included a new section, Section 934.05, on mining site plan submittal <br />requirements. He outlined the necessity and requirements for the submittal of a hydrology report <br />(Section #3, Item (1) [d]), noting that one of the proposed hydrology report specifications was to <br />have the applicants pay for the County to hire an expert to review the reports. Director Boling <br />disclosed two options regarding the hydrology report requirement: (1) PZC recommended that <br />the hydrology report not be required, but that applicants obtain their SJRWMD permit prior to <br />appearing before the PZC; and (2) staff recommended that applicants would submit the <br />hydrology report to the County, and pay for expert review of the document. Director Boling said <br />that a third option, which was not in the proposed changes, would be to allow the applicant to <br />decide whether they wanted to get their SJRWMD up front, or whether they wanted to present <br />the hydrology report to the County and pay for the expert review. <br />9 <br />December 8, 2008 <br />